Religion & PhilosophyDiscuss Evangelicals and fundamentalists--and Donald Trump at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by ShivaTD
Do fundamentalists, that claim to have these religious moral standards that they use to judge other, ...

Do fundamentalists, that claim to have these religious moral standards that they use to judge other, oppose Donald Trump?

The majority, I think, support Donald Trump.

As I have said before, Donald Trump never ran for the office of minister-in-chief.

And fundamentalists, I believe, would be quite consistent in supporting Donald Trump, as he has generally supported the issues that are important to them--including (but not limited to) opposition to abortion-on-demand, and support for the state of Israel.

By the way, your suggestion that fundamentalists are especially judgmental is not one that I have found to be at all accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD

The United States is "One Nation Under the US Constitution" and not "One Nation Under God" that was nefariously legislated into incorporation in the Pledge of Allegiance along with "In God We Trust"...

The adverb, "nefariously," is an opinion--not a proven fact.

By the way, the Pledge of Allegiance has undergone several changes--not just this one--since its inception.

Oh, one other thing: Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address (in 1863) spoke of one nation "under God." Do you find this offensive, also?

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

This is all-too-often true, but on the other hand it's conversely worth noting that some Christians don't apply such forgiveness consistently across the board, themselves.

This is very true as the Bible says, all men have come short of the Glory of God. We are all sinners and need to ask forgiveness for not only those that cross us, but for ourselves. And until we can humble ourselves before the Lord, we have no right to condemn others for their transgressions.

__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

I really appreciate your answer and would agree that they shouldn't oppose Donald Trump because of moral issues like extramarital sex. I don't care who or how many women Donald Trump has had sex with but there's a caveat. It had to be legal consensual sex and not sexual assault and while it was a private matter between Trump and the women involved it should not have been covered up with NDA's that may have violated the campaign finance laws. I'm concerned with the law and not with Trump's personal sexual habits.

But we both refer to "should" not be opposed based upon subjective (religiously motivated) moral standards. But do fundamentalists, that claim to have these religious moral standards that they use to judge other, oppose Donald Trump? I've not really seen that happening except in a small number of religious organizations and their leaders and the opposition included both fundamentalists and evangelicals but they're a rare exception.

And I can find no excuse for supporting Trump if Trump's actions violated the law. The search warrants of Michael Cohen's offices by the Federal Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York (completely unrelated to the Mueller investigation) seems to be directly tied to significant evidence that Cohen, very probably with Trump's knowledge and consent, violated the law related to cover-ups of consensual and non-consensual sexual activities of Donald Trump. The standard for getting a search warrant for the attorney is far higher than for getting a search warrant for a private person. Instead of simply providing "probable cause" for the warrant the criteria virtually requires enough evidence for a grand jury indictment based upon a crime being committed and the search is simply to provide additional evidence for successful prosecution. The application for the search warrant for Cohen required the highest level of approval by the FBI and DOJ and the warrant was issued by a judge, independent from the DOJ and FBI, demanded the high level of evidence to support issuing the warrant.

If Cohen did borrow money on his home to pay Stormy Daniels but didn't disclose that as the purpose for the borrowing then it's bank fraud. If Cohen didn't disclose that the money transfer was for the payment of money to Stormy Daniels that's wire fraud. If the money was paid to prevent Stormy Daniels from publically disclosing the relationship because it would adversely effect the Trump Campaign for President then it's a violation of Election Finance Law because of the amount and the non-disclosure of the expenditure. If Donald Trump knew about any or all of the above then he's a co-conspirator to the crime(s) committed.

The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York probably already has evidence that all of the above laws were violated and, at most, is looking to see of there's evidence that show Trump is a co-conspirator. Cohen would be charged for the crimes while Trump would not under current DOJ guidelines related to a sitting president but Trump could be named in Cohen's indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.

So I'm not concerned with any of the moral aspects but I'm very much concerned with the violations of our laws.

My bottom line question would therefore be do fundamentalists and evangelicals oppose Donald Trump based upon significant evidence of the violations of the law by Donald Trump? I've not seen evidence of that either.

While too young to vote in 1960 when Kennedy ran it's the first election I really remember because I was 11 years old. The opposition to Kennedy because he was Catholic was more than just a "few people" objecting. The question was whether a Catholic would be controlled by their religious allegiance to the Pope or by the US Constitution and many with religious prejudice claimed that Kennedy would be a puppet of the Pope because he was a Catholic.

Anyone serving in our government must, by necessity, place the US Constitution above any personal religious consideration. If that's something they're incapable of doing then they should simply stay out of our government.

The United States is "One Nation Under the US Constitution" and not "One Nation Under God" that was nefariously legislated into incorporation in the Pledge of Allegiance along with "In God We Trust" becoming our National Motto replacing the true National Motto that had existed since 1776 of E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One) during the 1950's in religious opposition to the "godless" Russians. It was strange that Christians didn't seem to care as much about the tyranny in Russia as they did about the fact that Russia was officially an atheist country. The "Christians" condemned the "godlessness" of Russia with nefarious legislation while virtually ignoring the tyranny of the communist regime that was our only legitimate reason for opposing Russia during the cold war.

I am only going to address selected parts of your turgid rant.

Why shouldn't Trump use NDA like every other private citizen or corporation? Bill Clinton paid $800K to a former lover, the settlement included NDA provisions. That's different, right?

The conspiracy theory that the NDA agreement is a campaign contribution is based on laughable assumptions for which no evidence has been provided. It's another Resistance fantasy of hate against Trump.

The claim that extraordinary evidence must exist, secret of course, to justify piercing the attorney client privilege with a broad search warrant ignores the fact that it was orchestrated by Mueller's zealots as part of their campaign of hate against Trump. This isn't the first time Mueller abused search warrants for intimidation. Paul Manafort despite cooperating with Mueller's partisan operative prosecutors was rousted out of bed by force so agents could ransack his home and office. Mueller loves the intimidation of a forcible search.

Secret surveillance warrants were thought to require a high level of evidence presented to a FISA court but yet we find that unverified opposition research was used to spy on the Trump campaign and transition team. But don't worry the process could never have been abused to seize Trump's attorney's records by force.

__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

Interesting. Is it being implied that fundamentalists should be opposed to Donald Trump because he violates their fundamental doctrines?

Is it also being claimed that they don't consider the religious beliefs of the candidate for president being important because they're not electing a "minister-in-chief" when they vote for the president?

Just because Trump doesn't live like them, doesn't mean that he doesn't support their beliefs. What was the alternative? A corrupt liar, that is trying desperately to line her own pockets? A person that believes in all forms of abortion? A person that more aligns with Atheists? Judas?